How to choose between short-route guys Randall Cobb and Golden Tate

The game of football, and thus fantasy football, has been changing, and that has made shorter guys who run shorter routes more fantasy relevant. In fact, there were four sub-six-foot wide receivers that finished in the top 12 in each of the last two seasons.

There were three wide receivers last year who had at least 100 targets and an average depth of target of less than 8.0 yards. Jarvis Landry was one, and he was covered last week. The other two were Randall Cobb and Golden Tate. Considering their unorthodox player profile, should they to be trusted in 2015, and which one should you draft first? Let’s take it bit-by-bit:

Quarterback strength

When comparing the two over the course of their careers, they’ve been in completely different situations as far as their passer has been concerned. Cobb has been with a future Hall of Fame quarterback in Aaron Rodgers since day one, and still is, while Tate has gone from Matt Hasselbeck to Tarvaris Jackson to Russell Wilson, and now has Matthew Stafford. While Tate cannot help this category, it’s something that matters. Advantage: Cobb

Mike Tagliere is a Lead Writer for PFF Fantasy. He's ranked as a top-six fantasy football expert twice over the last four years by FantasyPros.com. Follow @MikeTagliereNFL

Daniel

I prefer Cobb overall, but I don’t think it’s fair to assume that the loss of Calvin is a negative for Tate’s fantasy value. It is a small 5 game sample, but Tate averages nearly 5 PPR points higher in games without Calvin over the past 2 seasons. Averaging nearly 3 targets more per game.

crosseyedlemon

I agree with you. Without a home run threat a team has to rely more on the setup guys like Tate to keep the chains moving.

crosseyedlemon

Agree that Cobb has to be the choice based on QB strength. The Lions though should be trailing in games far more often than the Packers so Tate should get targeted plenty.